Hacker News Reader

Comment by cool_dude85 | Hacker News Reader

>The problem is in "Non Right to Work States" the unionized can clobber people that choose not to unionize and coerce them into participation.

You are badly misinformed about what "right to work" is. In a union shop, the unionized "coerce" all employees in their bargaining units to participate, even in "right to work" states! Everyone is covered by the same contract! That's the whole point! Even in "right to work" states, everyone in the unit is coerced into participation by your understanding.

The only thing "right to work" offers is that people covered by the contract may choose not to pay dues (or choose to forgo some portion of the dues).

In all cases, all relevant employees are "coerced" into the union contract.

View on HN

"It's only unethical if I have to pay for it!" - GP, probably.

If anything, right to work is more unethical because it allows people to receive the benefits of union coverage without the input. Of course, that's the point: starve out the unions by making it so no one has an incentive to pay into the union.

> In all cases, all relevant employees are "coerced" into the union contract.

It's funny because usually the libertarian response to a lot of problems is "put it in a contract". But not that kind of contract!

No; the libertarian perspective would be "everyone should negotiate their own contract".

I'm as far from a libertarian as I could be, but why should a libertarian think this? If you don't want to work for a company who has signed a contract with a labor union for a closed shop, you can go to a different company and negotiate your own. Surely I have the right as an individual to choose to join a closed shop, right?

Entering into a contract with multiple people to form a corporation = fine

Entering into a contract with multiple people to collectively bargain with a corporation = deprivation of human rights (according to some posts in this thread)

At least the GP admitted that their problem really is just "that kind of contract".

That's because that's not a contract. Real contracts can only bind people who sign them, but in places that don't recognize right to work, you can be forced to join a union just because 51% of your co-workers signed.

You are making the same mistake as the post I replied to. You are "forced to join a union just because 51% of your co-workers signed" effectively everywhere in the US, not just in "right to work" states. If 51% of your co-workers agree, they will form a union, and that union will negotiate a contract on your behalf. You're in, baby.

"Right to work" only covers whether you can be made to pay union dues as part of this arrangement.

Sure, I'll admit that right to work isn't perfect, but it's definitely a big step in the right direction.

Partnership contracts bind non-signers from receiving benefits of a partnership. And with good reason: you wouldn't want any ole schmoe laying claim to the fruits of your labor.

Contracts deprive non-signers of things all the time. That's kind of the point.

Do you have a problem with corporations signing "exclusive" deals with other corporations?

Yes, for party A to penalize party B for doing business with party C is an attack on free market competition which should be banned.

Penalize? So it’s ok for a group of people to enter a contract to form a corporation (“penalizing” non-signatories by preventing them from benefiting from the profits of the corporation)… but it’s not ok for a group of people to enter a contract to collectively bargain with a corporation (“penalizing” non-signatories by preventing them from benefiting from the contract).

This is absurd.

You’re saying a corporation cannot enter into a contract to be the exclusive supplier of a widget to another corporation?

“I won’t work for less than $x” is fine.

“You can’t hire anyone else willing to work for less than $x” is extortionate. Competition is necessary for a market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com